Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

An analysis of Rivals.comís top 100 players from 2006 to 2009 reveals that 42 percent of the nationís top prospects became busts, meaning they failed to either play in 40 games, start 20 games or have one above-average season in their college careers.

More than 1 million boys play high school football each fall. The chance of one of them being ranked as a Rivals.com top 100 prospect as a senior is 0.0004 percent. Yet, 42 percent of the best of the top one percentile still fail.

In contrast, only 14 percent of those 100 prospects have been, or are projected to be, first- or second-round picks in the NFL draft.

so according to that article, the online "experts" rating what they considered to be the elite prospects for that time period were only slightly better than 50-50? I wonder how much subscription money those sites took from members in that same time-frame to be not much better than a pedestrian observer?

Beyond the vagaries, the hype and the busts, the annual recruiting rankings still represent the most reliable system at our disposal for making initial assumptions about teams and players alike. Taken as a whole, the numbers actually do work -- as long as you're willing to use all of the numbers.

1) 5 star talent usually goes to programs where they have to compete with other 5 star talent. Their metrics do not take into account these differences in how hard it is to get playing time, in their measure of "failure." It is more likely to be stuck as a second string runningback if your team gets 5 star guys in every year.

2) What are the %'s of failure for 4-stars? They aren't comparing two sets of data. So how am I supposed to evaluate what 42% failure means?

__________________Gamecocks1137: "I dont think it is embarrassing at all. Muschamp was just what this team needed."
b381l:"no it's not....it's THE best staff we have ever had.....it's not close."
-Spring 2016

so according to that article, the online "experts" rating what they considered to be the elite prospects for that time period were only slightly better than 50-50? I wonder how much subscription money those sites took from members in that same time-frame to be not much better than a pedestrian observer?

Well, technically it would be a 42-58%, which could be a big difference depending on the business. There is some inherit risk in projecting how a 17-18 year old will develop anyway, not to mention the fact that they are going from high school to college which some average students can't handle, but also from being the man to the bottom of the totem pole.

__________________Gamecocks1137: "I dont think it is embarrassing at all. Muschamp was just what this team needed."
b381l:"no it's not....it's THE best staff we have ever had.....it's not close."
-Spring 2016

I don't think its as much about just getting 5 star players. If you get five 5-star guys at wide receiver and you get a 2-star QB and O-line what good are they? But in the case of Bama when you get 5-star guys two and three deep at every position its hard to lose. The key is to get a lot of 4 and 3 star guys with potential and high character and coach them up. You probably won't win a national championship every year, but you might just get lucky. And its also been proven that you can get a team thats rated in the top five every year and still not win a national championship even WITH a lot of luck.